In 2000, specialists from Chemonics International assessed SO5 activities to provide USAID/Guatemala with recommendations for a new program strategy and framework for assessing results of project efforts. Another team from International Resources Group, through the EPIQ IQC, conducted a separate assessment of Guatemala's environmental policy and protected areas system. The resulting complementary analyses were coordinated and posted together in this document. Project achievements include the establishment of the Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR), reduced deforestation within MBR, strengthened coalitions between government and NGOs, initiation of NGOs, and establishment of forest concessions. Forests in the multiple-use zone remain intact and are producing benefits due to effective management; however, concessions do not yet act independently. Concession programs are not effectively evaluated and reported to USAID. The authors find that program implementation has been hampered by: Indefensible protected area (PA) borders; Uneven allocation of resources within the PA, Lack of baseline for evaluation, Buffer zone does not act as a buffer and is an area of intensive settlement and use Inappropriate sustainable agriculture program; Land titling difficulties; Local population growth. The authors recommend that MBR expand local stakeholder participation and the National Council for Protected Areas should be a coordinating body. They further note that international NGOs have become unnecessary ‘middlemen’ for funding while local NGOs still need strengthening. They find that all types of project information and planning need improved management and suggest that sustainable forestry activities should be further promoted. The authors suggest that the future actions focus on the MBR rather than expanding the conservation program to other areas. Furthermore, they suggest that MBR focus should be on 1) conservation of biodiversity in core areas, 2) consolidation of community forestry concessions, 3) integrated development of service corridor, and 4) improved policies. Lastly, the authors note that the method of evaluating project results is not functioning, making it impossible for project managers to know what the actual successes are and where improvement are needed. Suggestions are given for improving this process.

Browse

Learn

Follow

Contact

Companion Sites

The information provided on this website is not official U.S. Government
information and does not represent the views or positions of the U.S. Agency for International Development or the U.S. Government.